+ Register

[Tomla]

I finally understand the bet! whew.Kind of clever--I tested  two random  shoes and ended up plus 6 in both. a lot of double wins for you parlay betters...

[WorldBaccaratKing]

I finally understand the bet! whew.Kind of clever--I tested  two random  shoes and ended up plus 6 in both. a lot of double wins for you parlay betters...

let us know if you do some more!

[Tomla]

ok I did 10 old shoes to plus 6 or stop at -8.... 7 shoes won plus 6, 1 shoe went plus 4 and 2 shoes lost -8

[AsymBacGuy]

It would be easier to look for a five consecutive series of singles-doubles on P side capable to erase any previous losses by a given progression, expecially when the "enemy" hadn't show up in the initial sequences of the shoe.
And expecially when some observed shoes hadn't provide a 4+ fictional consecutive winnings on a given sample of shoes.

The same could be applied on B side, now hoping for a B streaks' sequence in a given amount of shoes.

;-)

as.








 

[tdx]

I advise everyone to make their own garbage shoe and test any method on that shoe first before doing any other testing.

Also if you are manually checking a method and flat betting , a quick way to figure banker comm is to add up all winning bets in a shoe and divide by 2. Then miltiply result by .05 ( assuming banker will win half of all winning bets)

( if you win 20 hands in a shoe assume banker will win half which is 10, so multiple 10 by .05 =1/2 unit banker comm on the shoe.}

Its just an approximation but it should come close over many shoes. 

If you are using a progression then you obviously can't use this.....and if you are using a computer, then of course the softeware  can calculate the banker comm to the penny.

Just did 3 more rewal casino shoes on the bac matrix and ...not so good.

Lost 5 units on one shoe, lost 2 on another shoe and break even on the third shoe.

Never got to the magic number of 4 unit win on any shoe. ( premature ejaculation on all 3 shoes )

[AsymBacGuy]

I advise everyone to make their own garbage shoe and test any method on that shoe first before doing any other testing.

Also if you are manually checking a method and flat betting , a quick way to figure banker comm is to add up all winning bets in a shoe and divide by 2. Then miltiply result by .05 ( assuming banker will win half of all winning bets)

( if you win 20 hands in a shoe assume banker will win half which is 10, so multiple 10 by .05 =1/2 unit banker comm on the shoe.}

Its just an approximation but it should come close over many shoes. 

If you are using a progression then you obviously can't use this.....and if you are using a computer, then of course the softeware  can calculate the banker comm to the penny.

Just did 3 more rewal casino shoes on the bac matrix and ...not so good.

Lost 5 units on one shoe, lost 2 on another shoe and break even on the third shoe.

Never got to the magic number of 4 unit win on any shoe. ( premature ejaculation on all 3 shoes )

I quote.

It's literally impossible to get an average one unit profit per shoe, let alone higher amounts...

Moreover, we have to register our B winning bets as they should get a higher 9.4 % mathematical expectation after tax.

On the P side the task is quite simple. We must overcome a -1.24% edge over the long run.

Any method capable to lower such disadvantages itlr is a real good one, but there aren't too many.

In the short-intermediate run many methods can overcome such ratios (all due to the standard deviation topic) giving us the illusion to have found the holy grail.

If a holy grail system exists, it will be very very diluted, putting us at a very high risk to be subdued by the variance.

as. 








   

[HunchBacShrimp]

This is not a bad method. It reduces your action, gives you plenty of time in between bets to work out the columns of 3, a virtual w/l register and a real w/l register.

But it has no special significance. No advantage. It's no different than betting the most dominant side horizontally instead of vertically. Waiting for a virtual W-L pattern before betting for a W is an attempt to catch a win for every isolated loss. For every single Loss event. The exact same thing as betting for Banker to single.

HBS